The rise of casualised labour

[Bilan]

Recent analysis of changes in the labour market internationally, and growth in precarious forms of employment specifically, have revived the notion that labour is returning to the status of a commodity. This shift is represented by the erosion of regulatory arrangements and practices that recognised (and protected) embodied labour power in the person of a free citizen, one who exercises agency (including a voice, the change of workplace exit and resistance). Analysing the growth in temporary employment in Canada, Vosko argues that
labourpower is inevitably a commodity under capitalism, and the decline of security and freedom in the wage relation accentuates its commodity status (2000:15).

source (http://airaanz.econ.usyd.edu.au/papers/Pocock_Prosser_Bridge.pdf).

Discuss. Also, are there any particularly useful works on casualisation by Marxists?

[Luisrah]

I am beggining to not be surprised by this. I start to think that whenever capitalism goes unchecked, without someone to oppose it with struggles, this will always happen.

The increase of unemployment is greatly responsible for this. It's like, I have a job proposition, you work hard with no conditions and you get low pay and we just need you for a few days because we're on a tight schedule. You don't want it? Well, there's thousands of other unemployed people who will, so I don't care.

[Bilan]

It's a pretty common trend and it's growing.

[Hit The North]

Recent analysis of changes in the labour market internationally, and growth in precarious forms of employment specifically, have revived the notion that labour is returning to the status of a commodity.

When has labour not been a commodity within capitalism?

[Bilan]

When has labour not been a commodity within capitalism?

The quote is from a social research paper, not by a Marxist. Hence, there is a line in there claiming the re-commodification of labour.
What they mean by the 're-commodification of labour' is that in the West, where workers have won numerous rights at work (paid leave, job security [despite being overly contentious, especially in the emergence of a crisis], etc), workers who are working as 'casuals' have been stripped of all their rights except for one: an hour of work for an hour of pay.
They have sunk to the level of a mere commodity (that of something which is expendable and exchangeable at will) and have taken on a role which is akin to that of workers in the 'developing world' (i.e. the absence of any rights at work).

Which is (partially) why I am wondering whether or not there are works by marxists on this topic.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It is their definition of commodity that is in question. Business lingua restricts this to things like gold, oil, metals, and other things that have *absolutely* no qualitative differentiation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity

[Bilan]

Die Neut Ziet,
explanation is here:


In Australia, the rejection of the pure commodification of labour in the twentieth century was reflected in the notion of a ‘living wage’ payable to sustain workers through periods when they were not working. Justice Higgins’ emblematic argument for this compared a labourer with a horse: even a horse needs hay when it cannot work; similarly ‘lusty men’ are entitled at least to food, clothes and shelter for them and their dependents ‘even when there is no work for them ... They also serve who only stand and wait’ (Commonwealth Arbitration Reports, 1914:53, cited in Mitchell, 1973:359 and quoted in Beasley, 1996:39). In Australia, the growth in casual employment, like the growth in temporary employment in Canada, represents a shift back towards treating labour as pure commodity, with a corresponding widespread perception amongst casual workers of losses affecting their control of their time, their ability to earn a living income, their capacity to reproduce or support dependents, their voice, the respect they are given at work and their ability to organise collectively.

source (http://airaanz.econ.usyd.edu.au/papers/Pocock_Prosser_Bridge.pdf).

[Bilan]

Many of the assessments from this research paper really spell out how bleak the situation is for casual workers:


For example, George has nothing positive to say about his ten years in casual employment: it has seriously affected his health, his household and his life. While he takes pride and pleasure in his work, its casual terms drive him to thoughts of suicide. Similarly, Bruce loves driving his bus for disabled children. He takes pride in his relationships with the children and his care of them. Yet he considers being a casual unfair and poorly rewarded. Alice has worked for many years as a word-processing operator, work that she enjoys and does well. However, she has just changed jobs (and given up being casual) in order to be better treated and properly classified. Casual work consists of many aspects. Studies of satisfaction need to distinguish these aspects if they are to assess casual work terms accurately.

(Qualitative research)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Die Neut Ziet,
explanation is here:

source (http://airaanz.econ.usyd.edu.au/papers/Pocock_Prosser_Bridge.pdf).

That's what I'm saying though. Whether they say "commodification" by itself or "pure commodification," they are using how it's defined now and not the etymology which the classical economists used.

Re. the bleak situation, I point you to my commentary on Minsky's zero unemployment (e-mailed work and/or posted commentary on this board).

[bricolage]

The was a recent edition of Organise about this; http://www.afed.org.uk/publications/organise-magazine.html

Another interesting aspect is how during the 2005 'Banlieue' riots/uprisings in Paris, a number of temp agencies were attacked, the chapter 'The Discurcive Order' in this pamphlet goes into it; http://zinelibrary.info/grassroots-political-militants


"Temporary work agencies and 'state community centres' were attacked and destroyed no less than the police stations... But the temp agencies and the community centres were not burned by chance, they were deliberately attacked no more and no less than the police stations...

Everybody knows what temp agencies are. They regulate access to the labour market on a temporary basis and on conditions that favour companies. They are also organisations of blackmail and social control by police and unions, because if you're someone who organises the struggle and the conflict in the workplace or in any case someone who steps out of line, you're thrown out, and you can be sure it will be very hard for you to get another contract. You end up among the undesirables and you don't work again. The agencies are the main weapons used by capitalism to make workers harmless...

At the centre of the revolt, or among its most important targets, was the critique of the capitalist organisation of labour."